Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

check docs about (not archiving) atime #2518

Closed
ThomasWaldmann opened this issue May 16, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

check docs about (not archiving) atime #2518

ThomasWaldmann opened this issue May 16, 2017 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

check if we have enough docs talking about metadata stream deduplication and (not) archiving of atime.

if atime of a lot of fs objects changes between backups, deduplication suffers. but we have an option to not store atime into an archive (if it is not needed).

this also might strongly affect caching repo size when borg resyncs the chunks cache (and reads all metadata streams of all archives, using a caching repo):

as all metadata stream chunks get written into that caching repo, there will be a lot more if there isn't much deduplication if atimes of a lot of fs object are always changing between backups and thus create different metadata stream chunks in each archive.

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member Author

ThomasWaldmann commented May 16, 2017

Also talk about "relatime":

"With this option enabled, atime data is written to the disk only if the file has been modified since the atime data was last updated (mtime), or if the file was last accessed more than a certain amount of time ago (by default, one day)."

So if your backup frequency is >= 1/d, relatime does not help with this.

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member Author

when run as root, borg itself does not touch atime.

@ThomasWaldmann ThomasWaldmann self-assigned this Sep 22, 2017
ThomasWaldmann added a commit to ThomasWaldmann/borg that referenced this issue Sep 23, 2017
ThomasWaldmann added a commit to ThomasWaldmann/borg that referenced this issue Sep 23, 2017
@ghost ghost mentioned this issue Aug 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant